Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection

Background: Risk prediction techniques commonly used in liver surgery include the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). This study compares the utility of these techniques along with the number of segments resected as predictive tools in liver surgery. Methods: A review of a unit database of patients undergoing liver resection between February 2008 and January 2015 was undertaken. Patient demographics, ASA, CCI and CPET variables were recorded along with resection size. Clavien-Dindo grade III–V complications were used as a composite outcome in analyses. Association between predictive variables and outcome was assessed by univariate and multivariate techniques. Results: One hundred and seventy-two resections in 168 patients were identified. Grade III–V complications occurred after 42 (24.4%) liver resections. In univariate analysis of CPET variables, ventilatory equivalents for CO2 (VEqCO2) was associated with outcome. CCI score, but not ASA grade, was also associated with outcome. In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of developing grade III–V complications for incremental increases in VEqCO2, CCI and number of liver segments resected were 1.09, 1.49 and 2.94, respectively. Conclusions: Of the techniques evaluated, resection size provides the simplest and most discriminating predictor of significant complications following liver surgery

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

Objective: To document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak. Methods: An online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March – May 2020, “period 1”), and then again between May and June (“period 2”) and June and July 2020 (“period 3”). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume. Results: The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries’ first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence. Conclusion: Centres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic “normal” by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries

The most difficult and painful decision: When there is nothing to do anymore, when is better to do nothing

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a state of severe malperfusion of the lower limb. Patients with diabetes, end-stage renal disease, or very elderly, are particularly involved and at risk of a major cardiovascular event, sudden death, and amputation. Decision-making in CLTI is based on the initial choice, if attempting limb salvage or proceeding with a major amputation to minimize surgical stress in these fragile patients at risk of perioperative death. It is always important to establish what is their basal functional status, as well as the extent of all their comorbidities, before suggesting a limb revascularization surgery. We should try to understand whether the patient can derive a substantial benefit from a perfectly successful revascularization intervention. Patency or limb salvage should not always be aimed for at any cost: while most patients will benefit from an aggressive limb salvage approach, others will benefit from a primary amputation, and others will benefit from palliative care with no invasive intervention. Therapeutic risk stratification is crucial, and the inability to recover from major stress must be foreseen. We should answer these three questions: Is our patient dying? What is the expected ambulatory capacity of our patient? Is the foot severely infected? Major amputation can also represent the best therapeutic option and, as such, it must be planned and executed with accuracy. Only after this elaborate decision-making process, we can inform our patient to ask for consent to the treatment

Global impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave on vascular services

This online structured survey has demonstrated the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular services. The majority of centres have documented marked reductions in operating and services provided to vascular patients. In the months during recovery from the resource restrictions imposed during the pandemic peaks, there will be a significant vascular disease burden awaiting surgeons. One of the most affected specialtie